get_terminal_log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It merely restates the tool's purpose without mentioning output format, filtering, pagination, or any other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short, front-loaded phrase that conveys the essential purpose. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only log retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what records are returned, though it could benefit from a bit more context about what 'terminal' refers to, but the sibling tools and output schema reduce the need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '获取终端上下线记录' clearly states the tool retrieves terminal online/offline records. It has a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling log tools like get_auth_log or get_wireless_terminal_log.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any contextual cues about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.